Dismissed¶27

Bhaskar Chandra Chandra and Anr. v. Shyama Prasad Bandyopadhyay

Calcutta HC6 May 2025FA/132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of first appeal at the behest of defendants/appellants when decree went in their favour; no appeal against mere findings of impugned judgment; ad interim injunction order vacated as obtained by misrepresentation; Section 8 West Bengal Land Reforms Act pre-emption by co-sharer decided ahead of partition suit; dismissal of respondent's partition suit following pre-emption order; FA 132 of 2025 and CAN 1 of 2025 dismissed; High Court at Calcutta, appellate side, decision May 6, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No affirmative relief: the order dated April 7, 2025 was vacated; FA 132 of 2025 dismissed as not maintainable; connected application CAN 1 of 2025 dismissed consequentially; no order as to costs. ¶27

Bhaskar Chandra Chandra and Anr. Vs Shyama Prasad Bandyopadhyay — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No affirmative relief: the order dated April 7, 2025 was vacated; FA 132 of 2025 dismissed as not maintainable; connected application CAN 1 of 2025 dismissed consequentially; no order as to costs.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad interim order dated April 7, 2025 passed in connection with the injunction application was obtained by misrepresentation and ought to be vacated. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The order dated April 7, 2025 was passed by way of misrepresentation on the part of the appellants and is vacated on that ground alone.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The present appeal is not maintainable at all at the behest of the defendants/appellants, since no appeal lies merely against findings of the impugned judgment when the decree itself went in favour of the appellants.

¶25

Key takeaways

Since the appeal has been held not maintainable, nothing remains to be decided in it and keeping it pending would unnecessarily waste the valuable time of the litigants and the court; hence immediate dismissal despite the day's agenda being hearing of the application.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & Uday Kumar JJ.), FA 132 of 2025 - dismissed as not maintainable. Contrary to the appellants' representation, the partition suit whose dismissal formed the stated basis of their appeal had been filed by the respondent himself, who had simultaneously applied for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act as co-sharer; on this Court's direction in revision, the pre-emption case was decided first and allowed, making the respondent exclusive owner and leading to dismissal of his partition suit, so that the decree ran in favour of the defendants/appellants. The Court found the ad interim order dated April 7, 2025 to have been obtained by misrepresentation and vacated it on that ground alone. Holding that no appeal lies merely against findings of an impugned judgment where the decree itself went in the appellants' favour, the Court dismissed FA 132 of 2025 as not maintainable and, consequentially, CAN 1 of 2025, with no order as to costs.

¶1

Form No.J(2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶4

Appellate Side

¶5

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar

¶6

FA 132 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025

¶7

Bhaskar Chandra Chandra and Anr.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Sri Shyama Prasad Bandyopadhyay

¶10

For the Appellants : Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Ms. Poulami Chakraborty. For the Respondent/ Opposite Party : Mr. Subhendu Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Arindam Mitra Mr. Arka Mondal Heard on : May 6 2025. Judgment on : May 6, 2025.

¶11

¶12

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:

¶13

1.When we take up the application for hearing, learned Counsel

¶14

appearing for the respondent points out that the ad interim order previously passed in connection with the injunction application by this court was obtained on a misrepresentation before the court.

¶15

2.It appears from the order of this court dated April 7, 2025 that the premise of the said order was the submission of the appellants that the appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the appellants’ partition suit on the ground that a pre-emption order had been passed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in favour of the respondent.

¶16

3.However, the fact was just the reverse. The respondent himself had filed a partition suit and simultaneously an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, for getting preemption of the property in question on the ground that the respondent is a co-sharer.

¶17

4.This Court, in revision, directed the two suits to be heard together and the pre-emption case was directed to be decided first. In consonance thereof, the pre-emption case of the respondent was

¶18

¶19

decided first and allowed in favour of the respondent herein. Consequentially, the respondent’s suit for partition was dismissed, since, by virtue of the pre-emption order, the respondent had become the exclusive owner of the property.

¶20

5.We find, upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties that undoubtedly, the order dated April 7, 2025 was obtained by misrepresentation on the part of the appellants. Not only was it submitted that the appeal arose from dismissal of the partition suit of the appellants, we also find from the grounds taken in the appeal that the appeal has been also filed on the same premise. In fact, the very first ground in the memorandum of appeal is that the learned court below erred in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants without considering the materials on record.

¶21

Thus, we find that the order dated April 7, 2025 was passed by way of misrepresentation and as such, ought to be vacated on such ground alone. Consequentially, we vacate the order dated April 7, 2025.

¶22

7.On a more basic premise, we find that the present appeal is not maintainable at all at the behest of the defendants/appellants. The appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of a suit for

¶23

¶24

partition filed by the respondent and as such, the decree went against the respondent and not against the appellants.

¶25

8.Learned Counsel for the appellants seeks to impress upon the court that the appellants are aggrieved by certain findings in the judgment of the trial court. However, it is well-settled that no appeal lies merely against findings of the impugned judgment, if the decree itself went in favour of the appellants. Thus, the present appeal is not maintainable at all at the behest of the appellants.

¶26

9.It would be unnecessary and a wastage of valuable time of the litigants and the court if the appeal is kept pending, despite us having held that the same is not maintainable. Thus, although the matter is appearing in the cause list today for hearing of the application, in view of our above observations, nothing remains to be decided in the appeal.

¶27